Offender Victimization And Neutralization

When it comes to victimless crimes, the real question is how much is profited on the incarceration of non-violent criminals. I would think that people would be in an uproar as their tax money is being wasted on the housing such offenders. Not to mention the tax money spent on law enforcement and the legal system related to enforcing such ridiculous laws. In my observation, law enforcement, in general, spends more time on victimless crimes than they do crimes where there is a real victim. Yes, recreational drug use, prostitution, and Pornography-related crimes are immoral to me and many others, but the government was not created to make moral decisions for us.

The first victimization theory is victim precipitation. According to Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, some people may initiate confrontation, provoking the offender, which could eventually lead to his or her death or injury. (Siegel 78) During his research, he concludes that victims are not entirely innocent or blameless. Consequently, the victim sets into motion their own victimization using confrontation. These precipitations are performed in one of two ways, active or passive. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

The introduction of Nils Christie’s ‘Ideal victim’ theory (1986: 18) refers to victims of crime who can attain the status of a legitimate victim in the eyes of the public. Christie outlines a criteria which needs to be followed in order to gain this full status of a ‘legitimate victim’. Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ however is not the same as a legal victim and often real victims of crime deviate far from the concept of the ideal victim (Beck & Janbakhsh 2010). This therefore means that using Christie’s ideal victim theory to give someone the title of a legitimate victim is often detrimental. Male victims of sexual assault often deviate from the ‘ideal victim’ criteria set out by Christie, this means that when they encounter the justice system, their experiences are often marginalised or discounted entirely.

When examining the victim’s actions, the differences between a ‘positivist perspective’ and ‘feminist perspective’ become evident. A ‘positivist perspective’ implies "identifying the factors that contribute to the non-random victimization pattern, focusing on the interpersonal violent crimes, and endeavouring to identify the victims who are prone to contribute to their own victimization" (Kostić, M. 2010 p69). This shows the victim as being the kind of person that they are; this can also include lifestyle factors such as victims who brazenly display their wealth. ‘Positivist Perspective’ examines which social and psychological characteristics of victims make them different from and more vulnerable than, non-victims. An example of positivist victimology is Marvin Wolfgang's (1958) study of 588 homicides in Philadelphia. Wolfgang found that 26% involved victim precipitation – the victim triggered the events leading to the murder (Spalek, B. 2006 p34).

Murphy and Barkworth (2014) discuss how when someone is victimized they can feel like they have lost their place in society, again questioning ‘why me?’. By allowing the victim to participate and have a voice through their Criminal Justice process they feel more satisfied and feel valued as a person, regaining their prior status in the community (Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). Victims can also receive an explanation from the offender as to why and what happened the day they were victimized, this helps victims to avoid secondary victimization (in some circumstances) and also process their feelings of self-blame, especially cases of domestic violence and sexual assault (Miller and Heffner, 2013). Doak (2006) conducted a study where youth offenders were face-to-face with their victims and given the opportunity to explain themselves. In this study it was found that the victims were more interested in seeing something positive happen from the interaction, rather than seeking a negative result for the offender. One victim participating stated, “I don’t think punishment is important – it is about putting you back on the straight and narrow” (Doak and O’Mahony, 2006). Not only is having a voice a crucial part of the process for the victim, it gives the offender a chance to apologize and deal with their offence (Doak and O’Mahony,

In addition, there are other factors that influences people’s perception of domestic violence which can impact the victim. Some factor are the effects of domestic violence myths, decision to return, and victim–abuser relationship on victim blame. Domestic violence myths significantly contribute to the victim being blamed for the situation they are in. According to , victims are blamed more when they decide to return to their abuser. This finding suggests that when individuals observe a victim of domestic violence returning to her abuser, they tend to blame her more. They also judge or criticize the victim by minimizing the seriousness of the situation. Not only do personal domestic violence myths impact the victim, but also the communities and their beliefs.

Victimology, or the study of victims, especially crime victims, has created new categories of victims that had not been previously noted. What are typically known as “street crimes”, such as rape, robbery, murder, and assault, have been identified as crimes since the biblical era, and the victims of such crimes have long been identifiable (Karmen, 2013). It has been the advances in the field of Victimology, and the questions which have been asked, that have identified new types of crime, and with these new crimes, come new types of victims. As social mores change, and new issues emerge, new categories of crime victims will be identified, and each new group of victims will present a new group of issues, which will need to be addressed. As these new groups of victims are identifies, victimologist will be tasked with asking the questions needed, so that the process of how these groups became victims, and be identified, and studied, in hopes of preventing future victimization.

Introduction: Crime increases and criminals cannot magically disappear off the earth. Victims will continue to be harassed, assaulted, and emotionally distressed. Family, friends, pastors, and mediators cannot erase the pain a victim suffers from. As a society what can occur in order for justice to be served. The personal changes for the victim justice system to conjoin the criminal justice system which are as follows; general victimology; critical victimology, and victim’s movement.

The relationship between offending and victimization is one in the same according to the feminist pathways theory. When researchers compared the status offenses of girls and boys, girls where more likely to receive more stringent punishment for offenses such as; running away, truancy, and being out of control. In the past, girls and young women were treated like criminals and disregarded as victims due to sexual double standards.

Syke and Matza state that “much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defense to crimes, in the form of justification for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large.” In this case techniques of neutralization seem to be a set of different excuses which are quite fragile. I want to mention some of them, which have the highest possibility of appearance in our particular situation. The first technique is called “Denial of responsibility”. It means that some students will probably argue that “Everybody else is doing it” or that the forces of competition pushes them to act immorally and to accept the offer. Nevertheless, this point can not be used as an official

No one deserves to be battered, beaten, threatened, or in any way victimized by violence or by someone they trust or have a relationship with. While victims and prosecutors advocate often struggle with uncooperative victims, the demand not to prosecute is a challenging factor. Based on manipulation and coercion, there are also conflicting views of this epidemic. Many victims constantly make rational choices concerning their safety and way of living when deciding to prosecute. However, they may be in a better state of mind to decide whether prosecuting will help or hinder. When deciding to prosecute, domestic violence victims may allow themselves, in many cases, to become victimized by succumbing to the belief of personal vulnerability. When

When the topic of being victimized is at discussion, it is almost taboo to place the blame of the unjust treatment on the behavior of the victim. However, based on several theories and theoretical perspectives explored in victimology, victimization could certainly be a consequence of the victim’s behavior. The Victim-Precipitation theories directly address this idea stating that the victim may provoke or contribute to the outcome of the crime. In this theory produced by theorist Von Hentig, he states that crime is created through social interaction where both sides contribute. Within this theory there are two separate ideas of precipitation, active and passive. Active precipitation is the concept that the victim provokes, threatens or even attacks first before becoming the victim. Passive precipitation on the other hand is the idea that the victim may display some characteristic that may threaten or encourage the offender. Even the negligence of the victim can be deemed as a contributing factor to becoming victimized. For example, a victim leaves their purse in plain sight of their passenger seat and does not bother to lock their car as they go inside of a department store. Upon returning to their car they realize their purse is gone. Although the victim did not actively provoke the crime, the victim played a role and may have influenced the offender.

When it comes to marital rape, many do not realize how serious of a crime it is or how life-shattering it can be from the victims. Marital rape is described as a spouse forcing their partner in sexual acts without their consent. According Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Monson (1998), between 10% and 14% of all married women have been raped by their husbands in the United States (p. 434). It was not until the late 1970’s that for the first time a spouse was convicted for raping his partner in the United States. By 1993, it was illegal in every state to rape your spouse. It is amazing how it took nearly fifteen years to recognize marital rape as a crime, but for some reason today it is not prosecuted the same as stranger rape.

The difficulty of identifying wife rape as a crime, their husband as a criminal, the likelihood of repeated assaults, and the potential of negative impacts on children who lives in the home are also more damaging results from marital rape according to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN). Wife rape degrades the wife’s integrity and self-esteem. She can be alive but yet dead on the inside resulting in her becoming a dead woman living under continuous fear of hurt or

The study of victimology includes several different theories. These theories are victim-based, interactional, societal-based, and ecological. However, before on can begin discussing these theories, the history of the development of victimology theories need to be broached. Although victimology may lack a singular theoretical foundation based within the field itself, it can be said that the field as a whole represents the application of several different theoretical insights that were developed from other disciplines. The first of these other disciplines is criminology. From his work, Vold (1958) was able to provide a framework for categorizing theories that relate to victimology. Within this paper the discussion will begin with the early spiritual explanations, followed by